Do people assume your images were made using HDR when they weren't, and if so, how does that make you feel?
My most recent post in ESS has brought up that issie. Marc Adamus made a comment about how I always preface my image postings with "No HDR" when stating the tech details. My reply was that I do that to combat assumptions that many people seem to make about my nice looking image must have been done with HDR. There are also others who assume some wild amount of post-processing must have been done if an image looks "to good to be true". Right, Marc?
Our esteemed E-I-C Richard Bernabe then made a comment that my inclusion of that "No HDR" statement must be based on (an assumption) my feeling that all HDR is bad. To wit, I replied:
I don't assume (all) HDR is automatically a bad thing. I've seen some superb examples where the use is done "right", maintaining a 'natural' look & feel. But that represents about 15% of what I see.
The other 85% ranges from slightly overdone, to something that resembles a train wreck. For the latter, of which I see many examples of on flickr. Some do it on purpose as a stylistic choice (which I'm just not fond of) to beginners who use it as a tool to make their photos "better", but instead slaughter their photo cause they don't know when to take the foot off the gas pedal.
Here's a quote from an image post on flickr to highlight what I mentioned in my previous reply:
I am not a fan of photomatrix HDR, always looks fake, but you managed to not only make this look real but the composition and elements are fantastic!
Wow! just read your description, NO HDR?!? Even more impressed! Great post processing!
The irony - as I wrote to him, was that not only was there no HDR, but there was no post processing either, since it was one of my film-based images.
So my question to you is not so much on how you feel about HDR. I figur that's probably already been hashed out here, but have you personally experienced that assumption toward your images, that they must have been made with HDR when they weren't? If so, how does it make you feel? Good, bad, indifferent, or like me, makes you wanna get a pizza & beer...?
For one, I don't like the look and feel of most HDR - the 85% or so you refer to, and I can tell when HDR has been used in almost every case, even when it's well done. People assume my images are HDR as well, even though I've never used an automated process to blend exposures. People can do what they want with their own images and that's not my place to tell them otherwise, but it does bug me when people refer to my own images as HDR. Why? Beacuse of the growing public assumption that HDR is the ONLY way to control a large dyamic range, or even to create good landscape images in general. IMO, automated HDR is often (but not always) an excuse used by those who haven't figured out how to get a more natural result through field techniques or manual blending. My only problem with HDR is people thinking that it's the only way.
Marc, I say that using GNDs really is HDR - but with a subtler touch and better results than most people get with in-computer HDR. (Of course, I'm using HDR, as you were - a generic term to mean any kind of dynamic range compression into a scene. Maybe "XDR" would be better?)
EDIT : I'm NOT using it as Marc was...sorry Marc. My thoughts and typing didn't line up there...
The problem is the bad name that HDR has gotten, and the fact that people don't lump it in with every other adjustment that can be made. What I mean is, you can mess with S+H, masks, curves, color temp. etc, as much as you want and it doesn't sound so bad. Nobody goes - "oh, gee, another awful use of the S+H tool". (Maybe people did when it was first introduced into PS?) I'm guessing that as HDR becomes much more automated and common (especially when cameras start doing multi-exposure HDR in camera - it's coming) it won't be such an issue, and people will understand that it is just a technique for squeezing DR into and image.
Just to clarify, I'm using HDR to describe an automated approach to High Dynamic Range through programs like Photomatix. I am not applying the term to field techniques, manual blends, shadow recovery in RAW, etc.
Wow Gary - I just took a quick look through your Flickr gallery, and they amount of comments regarding HDR is pretty crazy. Including several people saying "I would have assumed this was HDR if you hadn't said it wasn't". I'm thinking two things though :
1) You invite some amount of the HDR commentary by posting the "No HDR" message in bold. It puts it in people's heads even when it may not have occurred to them.
2) Perhaps the best response to "I thought it was HDR" might be a shrug and who cares. If the viewer a) doesn't recognize that you shot film, or the other various techniques Marc mentioned and b) thinks applying HDR techniques to get your kind of results is easy or a cop-out, then maybe you should ignore it. After all, some people think that photography is just point and click, and anyone could do it. Photographers have learned to ignore those people. Maybe the HDR comments should be ignored too.
The only reason I brought it up is because I thought it was interesting that you had to preface your image by saying that. To most nature photographers, HDR is a pejorative term. But to me, personally, I could care less HOW the image was created (pre or post processing). I only care how it affects me and if it turns me on. Yours certainly does.
I am slowly learning HDR to see if it has a place in my photographic toolbox (with exposure blends, dodging and burning, GNDs). If it can help me better express my moments in nature, then I will embrace it further. if not, i won't.
Read this discussion substituting "digital photography" for HDR and you have a discussion from about 10 years ago. I think we've gotten past that one to some extent.
Further, to my way of thinking, it is impossible to post an imagine on flickr without post processing. You can't show a piece of film on flickr. Pixels only. Film--> Pixels = post processing. What do you call it if your post-processing sucks? LDR? Who cares!
But to answer your question, no one has ever assumed I used HDR. Perhaps I'd be flattered.
I recently displayed a handful of prints that were a mixture of digital and film captures, all printed digitally, except for one digital capture that was printed by a traditional photographic paper & chemcial process. So, really, when people would start asking that sort of question, I would just say "none of it is real. They're just photographs. You have to be there in person to see the real thing."
"So, really, when people would start asking that sort of question, I would just say "none of it is real. They're just photographs. You have to be there in person to see the real thing." "
Awesome quote Pete, I may have to use that sometime... I hate answering the question, "is that real, did you PS it?". Of course I PS'd it, so did Ansel Adams. But these days it seems like it's such a negative connotation, that I hate answering it, as if it might reduce the impact of the image on the viewer if they know things were done to it. So I usually go and explain that that's the way it's always been.... I like your approach better
As for HDR, yes people have mistaken my work for HDR. I just mention that it's not (using Marc's definition). I've never seen an HDR that I couldn't tell within seconds of viewing it, and I don't think I've ever seen one that I think looked better than what an accomplished blender could do in a few minutes work. What I find more interesting though, is that when I show prints, people assume it's either film, or for a brief moment a painting... they're confused when I say it's all digital. I think the medium of display actually has a big impact on how images are perceived. That mostly applies to 'the general public', not folks like everyone here that are engrossed in the world of photography.
David - you may be correct that my posting the statements elicits and an abnormal response ratio relative to the subject, but you can see that the assumptions are there, regardless. I like breaking that assumption.
Richard - yes, esteemed. A title given in respect for someone in charge, like "the esteemed head bureaucrat in charge of our local garbage collection service." - not something you should automatically let go to your head, but meant with sincere respect anyway.
To all - When I speak with my consulting clients, or my workshop students, or other photographers, (and in agreement with Marc) that HDR is an automated process using algorithms to manipulate the raw photo data.
I use the term Expanded Dynamic Range (EDR) for any other 'manual' process that expands the dynamic range of a photo (or part of a photo) beyond that which was available through a single photographic exposure made in-camera. Pre-Processing includes adding a GND filter on your lens, and post processing include anything like blending, brushing with ND, or any other process whereby the photographer is in charge of making the choices of how the image date is being manipulated.
IOW - HDR is like that TV commercial we have out here for Staples Office Supply where someone hits a big red EASY button to solve something.
Posted by John W. Wall on April 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I've used a Lightroom dynamic range plug-in called Enfuse quite a few times, and have never been asked whether it was HDR'd. Here's a recent example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwallphoto/3383928322/in/set-72157614402231466/
See John, that's a great example of something that looks totally natural. I'm not familiar with the LR plug-in. Is that the same as PS HDR, get 3+ frames selected and hit "run"? (odd how 'run' is one letter away from 'ruin'?
I would just say "none of it is real. They're just photographs. You have to be there in person to see the real thing."
Pete, I must say that is one of the best quotes I've ever heard on the subject. I can tell you that it is going to get some use in my gallery! (P.S. Pete did you notice that your web link sends the user to Google?)
I mentioned this in another thread a while back, but I think you might be fighting an uphill battle if you want people to use HDR to mean only the Photomatix type automated process. It seems to me that as it enters more of the "general public's" vocabulary, it's more and more commonly used to mean any kind of dynamic range compression. Although EDR or XDR make more sense, HDR seems to have gotten a foothold for many people. (For instance, I believe that the Patel's are offering a class publicized on this site that is an "HDR" class, and doesn't necessarily use anything like Photomatix. Maybe Varina or Jay are around to comment?)
Not my battle. While I enjoy the discussion, I use the EDR vs HDR with my workshop & consulting clients only to be clear on that one is automated process while the other isn't.
My battle has alway been, and continues to be, trying to convince the public that Dan Quayle was right when he spelled potatoe. How do you spell the thing on your foot? "Toe", right? It's not potat-2 as in to, two, or too. Now THAT is a battle worth fighting!
My battle has alway been, and continues to be, trying to convince the public that Dan Quayle was right when he spelled potatoe.
Sounds like a good fight. (With apologies to Jim Gaffigan) Maybe you could also find out how you get "bu - lone - ee" out of Bologna. I mean, there's a "g" in there!
Posted by Richard Wong on April 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM
I was asked this during the Sierra Club lecture I gave recently and just answered, "No. These were all single exposures." No further questions asked. The one question that a lot of people seem to ask is how much photoshop do you use? That is the question that bugs me the most since that seems to be a no-win situation.
Rather than label HDR as the 'automated process' to achieve an end, perhaps Automated High Dynamic Range (AHDR) as opposed to Manual High Dynamic Range (MHDR) would be better? After all, HOW you get more dynamic range isn't the point is it? It's the automation (or lack of it) that seems to be the issue. I suspect this argument will become moot when new sensors are able to capture 12 or more stops worth of dynamic range. Oh, wait... Red is already doing that. :-)
Plain and simple i think the vast majority of HDR is crap. I've written about it and hold nothing back to my view of it. Out of fairness though this has more to do with how people use it improperly.
Bottom line rather than rant about this excessively.... is that there is a generation of photographers who rely on Photoshop and HDR applications/plugins to cover up mediocre work. Digital photography has provided people with an outlet to play rather than focus on fundamentals of good photography. The fundamental lack of understanding of how cameras work and how to achieve technically sound images puts people in a mindset assuming this is how everyone takes photographs. As a result when they see an above average image they automatically think its the post-processing or software versus the skill of the photographer.
On Flickr the vast majority of photographers are just out to have fun and then whip things up quickly with software to create a photograph.
As mentioned earlier we all use techniques to expand dynamic range. I have no issue with that. Indeed some HDR looks good, but it is the exception. The difference between HDR and GND filters or dual processing RAW images is that those pursuing these means of expanding dynamic range actually have a level of photographic knowledge above and beyond the average photographer.
One facet of influence on a lot of younger photographers who find what we would consider "bad HDR" appealing are gamers. Video games have a high contrast, high saturation.... bad HDR look. People being exposed to this imagery for long periods of time come to like it and it clearly shows in their HDR.
I have something in the works on HDR so stay tuned Gary. I should have something together at the end of the month when I'm back from my travels in Central America.
Posted by Richard Wong on April 9, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Amen Jim. I left a few images on Flickr. Here is one:
Marc, I say that using GNDs really is HDR - but with a subtler touch and better results than most people get with in-computer HDR. (Of course, I'm using HDR, as you were - a generic term to mean any kind of dynamic range compression into a scene. Maybe "XDR" would be better?)
Well said!!! Perhaps this statement represent the truth about photography...Colors and light conditions in nature cannot ALWAYS be accurately be captured by a film or digital camera that is limited 8-9 stop dynamic range and color gamut that is smaller then human vision.
So, if you manipulate the image in Photoshop, with multiple exposure, with GND filter, with Photomatix or with just dodging and burning the film you are doing the same thing...compressing the dynamic range of the scene before you.
Like it or not...Even one photographed processed using multiple exposure and then blended together is an HDR because it still involves compressing the dynamic range. It is pointless to argue the use of terminology.
-Jay
Posted by Varina Patel on April 9, 2009 at 7:25 AM
"How much Photoshop do you use?"
I use Photoshop the way I used to use a darkroom... to create a final image that matches my vision. The difference? With Photoshop, I can save my work and walk away... which means my children have a mother... not a closed door.
If you answer this question with a lower number does it make you feel that you are a "Better Photographer"?
"Do you label your photograph NO HDR"
If you answer the question is yes does it make you feel your skill levels are far over and above the mediocre photographers?
-Jay
Posted by Varina Patel on April 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM
It used to be that a photographer who didn't develop his own images in the darkroom was "less than" the one who did. That photographer in the darkroom needed far more knowledge than the one who simply sent his prints out to be handled.
Now - we're seeing the opposite. The photographer who has the added knowledge that comes with being able to processes his own work is somehow "less than."
To me, it's just another argument that keeps me away from what I really love - Photography.
Gary - I wonder if you might try an experiment. Choose a single image, and upload it to flickr twice (with two different titles). Include the same description with both images - but add the words NO HRD to one. Then, submit one image to ten groups, and the other to ten different groups (no overlapping). Compare the comments. I very rarely get a comment about HDR with any of my images, and I'd be interested to see if those few words are part of your troubles.
I don't worry to much about what people say about my processes... but I listen carefully to what they say about my final product. I want to know what they see, so that I can be more aware in my own work. Will I change something just because someone on the forums suggested it? Not necessarily. But I'll listen... because that's how you learn.
Hey, it is all just 'retouching'. When I first learned to retouch almost a half century ago (no kidding) the rule of thumb was "if you've done it right, no one should be able to tell you've done anything". It isn't a matter of 'to HDR or not to HDR' or any other technique or even how much you did. It is about how skillfully you made it look natural. You are creating windows through which people not there may see what they otherwise would not see. Your objective should be that the audience will see what you photographed, not the photograph itself and/or your manipulation of it.
The exception (there are always exceptions) is when you are creating a personal interpretation which you do not intend as a representation of the subject. Even then your vision should be what impresses the viewer, not the technique. IMHO
Sounds like the old "Game Farm" discussions! I'll throw in my .02 . If it sells and puts bread on the table and your honest in your conversations with your customers then who cares! I wish they would develop a camera that would do it all automatically it would save me a lot of $'s. in filters and plugins and waiting for that perfect light. (from what I've seen with todays cameras I think their getting close)
To piggyback on what Varina wrote, if the photographer is achieving the effect that he/she is looking for, what difference does it really make what process is used? I've lost count of the number of images I've seen that involved a clear use of Photomatix (surely a single, unmodified Detail Enhanced tonemap) that represent the stereotypical "HDR look"--a virtual absence of shadows and highlights (i.e. any semblance of natural contrast), something that looks like an illustration. This is not my cup of tea by any means--I don't like this look at all--but if that's what the photographer is going for, it's successful, as far as I'm concerned.
In any case, the fact that this is the stereotypical look of HDR doesn't mean that it's not possible to use a program like Photomatix, usually as a piece of a much more complex workflow, to assist in the craft of obtaining photorealistic images. It can be done, believe me, but it invariably involves a lot more than dumping a few exposures into Photomatix and allowing them to "cook," then taking the resulting image as the final process. In fact, the workflow that I've found that produces satisfactory results is sufficiently involved that I only use it when I find that a single exposure or manual blending of multiple exposures won't work for some reason.
To piggyback on what Varina wrote, if the photographer is achieving the effect that he/she is looking for, what difference does it really make what process is used?
Personally I think it goes back to the question I asked in the earlier post. It is all about how it makes you look and feel.
A very famous and successful (and I would add very good) photographer claims this on his website:
"No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs. I use only natural light for all the images made for the gallery collection of handmade photographic prints."
Why would he make such a statement? Is it to perhaps to promote himself as being the leader in photographic skill? Or to sell his photographs as true "work of art" untouched by computer? Perhaps his work is threatened by the paradigm shift that is underway in the digital world.
Whatever the real reason his attitude towards digital photography sure is similar to some of the comments about HDR using Photomatix.
You underestimate the power of exponential growth curves. The singularity is near. Not only will the camera turn good light to bad light, the camera and you will be one, and you won't have to leave your petri dish to make the photograph. Ah, bliss.
Pete D.
great now I feel like having pizza and beer with Gary.....
In some ways, I'm sort of tired of the "look" of HDR already. I don't know how long it's been around. Long enough for me to have become aware of it, and long enough for me to be unexcited about giving it a whirl. I have a sister who would say "I'm over it already", which is sorta how I feel. I'm not sure if I should feel this way before even trying it, but I see an HDR photo coming my way & I get one of those "oh here we go again" reactions, even while I may be a little impressed.
It's a lot like what comes over me when I see the "home movie" technique of filming such as what they use on "The Office", only my reaction to that is much more negative because I just find it terribly distracting & contrived. One difference is that I have no need to try that kind of filming myself... there's nothing to aspire to there. To be very fair to HDR, I think I would need to visit the Norwegian Fjords or some similar fantastic landscape & try the technique & compare the results to results using some pp similar to what I know how to do, & see what outcome most closely captures the scenes I saw. If photography for me is overall about re-living my memory of that moment in time & light or capturing it for others, that for me would probably be the test of whether I'm really "over" HDR already, or not!
Discussion
37 repliesMy most recent post in ESS has brought up that issie. Marc Adamus made a comment about how I always preface my image postings with "No HDR" when stating the tech details. My reply was that I do that to combat assumptions that many people seem to make about my nice looking image must have been done with HDR. There are also others who assume some wild amount of post-processing must have been done if an image looks "to good to be true". Right, Marc?
Our esteemed E-I-C Richard Bernabe then made a comment that my inclusion of that "No HDR" statement must be based on (an assumption) my feeling that all HDR is bad. To wit, I replied:
I don't assume (all) HDR is automatically a bad thing. I've seen some superb examples where the use is done "right", maintaining a 'natural' look & feel. But that represents about 15% of what I see.
The other 85% ranges from slightly overdone, to something that resembles a train wreck. For the latter, of which I see many examples of on flickr. Some do it on purpose as a stylistic choice (which I'm just not fond of) to beginners who use it as a tool to make their photos "better", but instead slaughter their photo cause they don't know when to take the foot off the gas pedal.
Here's a quote from an image post on flickr to highlight what I mentioned in my previous reply:
I am not a fan of photomatrix HDR, always looks fake, but you managed to not only make this look real but the composition and elements are fantastic!
Wow! just read your description, NO HDR?!? Even more impressed! Great post processing!
The irony - as I wrote to him, was that not only was there no HDR, but there was no post processing either, since it was one of my film-based images.
So my question to you is not so much on how you feel about HDR. I figur that's probably already been hashed out here, but have you personally experienced that assumption toward your images, that they must have been made with HDR when they weren't? If so, how does it make you feel? Good, bad, indifferent, or like me, makes you wanna get a pizza & beer...?
EDIT : I'm NOT using it as Marc was...sorry Marc. My thoughts and typing didn't line up there...
The problem is the bad name that HDR has gotten, and the fact that people don't lump it in with every other adjustment that can be made. What I mean is, you can mess with S+H, masks, curves, color temp. etc, as much as you want and it doesn't sound so bad. Nobody goes - "oh, gee, another awful use of the S+H tool". (Maybe people did when it was first introduced into PS?) I'm guessing that as HDR becomes much more automated and common (especially when cameras start doing multi-exposure HDR in camera - it's coming) it won't be such an issue, and people will understand that it is just a technique for squeezing DR into and image.
1) You invite some amount of the HDR commentary by posting the "No HDR" message in bold. It puts it in people's heads even when it may not have occurred to them.
2) Perhaps the best response to "I thought it was HDR" might be a shrug and who cares. If the viewer a) doesn't recognize that you shot film, or the other various techniques Marc mentioned and b) thinks applying HDR techniques to get your kind of results is easy or a cop-out, then maybe you should ignore it. After all, some people think that photography is just point and click, and anyone could do it. Photographers have learned to ignore those people. Maybe the HDR comments should be ignored too.
Esteemed?
The only reason I brought it up is because I thought it was interesting that you had to preface your image by saying that. To most nature photographers, HDR is a pejorative term. But to me, personally, I could care less HOW the image was created (pre or post processing). I only care how it affects me and if it turns me on. Yours certainly does.
I am slowly learning HDR to see if it has a place in my photographic toolbox (with exposure blends, dodging and burning, GNDs). If it can help me better express my moments in nature, then I will embrace it further. if not, i won't.
Further, to my way of thinking, it is impossible to post an imagine on flickr without post processing. You can't show a piece of film on flickr. Pixels only. Film--> Pixels = post processing. What do you call it if your post-processing sucks? LDR? Who cares!
But to answer your question, no one has ever assumed I used HDR. Perhaps I'd be flattered.
I recently displayed a handful of prints that were a mixture of digital and film captures, all printed digitally, except for one digital capture that was printed by a traditional photographic paper & chemcial process. So, really, when people would start asking that sort of question, I would just say "none of it is real. They're just photographs. You have to be there in person to see the real thing."
Pete D.
Awesome quote Pete, I may have to use that sometime... I hate answering the question, "is that real, did you PS it?". Of course I PS'd it, so did Ansel Adams. But these days it seems like it's such a negative connotation, that I hate answering it, as if it might reduce the impact of the image on the viewer if they know things were done to it. So I usually go and explain that that's the way it's always been.... I like your approach better
As for HDR, yes people have mistaken my work for HDR. I just mention that it's not (using Marc's definition). I've never seen an HDR that I couldn't tell within seconds of viewing it, and I don't think I've ever seen one that I think looked better than what an accomplished blender could do in a few minutes work. What I find more interesting though, is that when I show prints, people assume it's either film, or for a brief moment a painting... they're confused when I say it's all digital. I think the medium of display actually has a big impact on how images are perceived. That mostly applies to 'the general public', not folks like everyone here that are engrossed in the world of photography.
Richard - yes, esteemed. A title given in respect for someone in charge, like "the esteemed head bureaucrat in charge of our local garbage collection service." - not something you should automatically let go to your head, but meant with sincere respect anyway.
To all - When I speak with my consulting clients, or my workshop students, or other photographers, (and in agreement with Marc) that HDR is an automated process using algorithms to manipulate the raw photo data.
I use the term Expanded Dynamic Range (EDR) for any other 'manual' process that expands the dynamic range of a photo (or part of a photo) beyond that which was available through a single photographic exposure made in-camera. Pre-Processing includes adding a GND filter on your lens, and post processing include anything like blending, brushing with ND, or any other process whereby the photographer is in charge of making the choices of how the image date is being manipulated.
IOW - HDR is like that TV commercial we have out here for Staples Office Supply where someone hits a big red EASY button to solve something.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwallphoto/3383928322/in/set-72157614402231466/
I bet you are highly offended that no one noticed the craftsmanship needed to show this image at its best.
Pete D.
Pete, I must say that is one of the best quotes I've ever heard on the subject. I can tell you that it is going to get some use in my gallery!
Not my battle. While I enjoy the discussion, I use the EDR vs HDR with my workshop & consulting clients only to be clear on that one is automated process while the other isn't.
My battle has alway been, and continues to be, trying to convince the public that Dan Quayle was right when he spelled potatoe. How do you spell the thing on your foot? "Toe", right? It's not potat-2 as in to, two, or too. Now THAT is a battle worth fighting!
Sounds like a good fight. (With apologies to Jim Gaffigan) Maybe you could also find out how you get "bu - lone - ee" out of Bologna. I mean, there's a "g" in there!
I suppose 14 wouldn't answer the question.
It should though.
Pete D.
--Dan Quayle
42
What other answer would there be?
Bottom line rather than rant about this excessively.... is that there is a generation of photographers who rely on Photoshop and HDR applications/plugins to cover up mediocre work. Digital photography has provided people with an outlet to play rather than focus on fundamentals of good photography. The fundamental lack of understanding of how cameras work and how to achieve technically sound images puts people in a mindset assuming this is how everyone takes photographs. As a result when they see an above average image they automatically think its the post-processing or software versus the skill of the photographer.
On Flickr the vast majority of photographers are just out to have fun and then whip things up quickly with software to create a photograph.
As mentioned earlier we all use techniques to expand dynamic range. I have no issue with that. Indeed some HDR looks good, but it is the exception. The difference between HDR and GND filters or dual processing RAW images is that those pursuing these means of expanding dynamic range actually have a level of photographic knowledge above and beyond the average photographer.
One facet of influence on a lot of younger photographers who find what we would consider "bad HDR" appealing are gamers. Video games have a high contrast, high saturation.... bad HDR look. People being exposed to this imagery for long periods of time come to like it and it clearly shows in their HDR.
I have something in the works on HDR so stay tuned Gary. I should have something together at the end of the month when I'm back from my travels in Central America.
My Flickr Photo
In reference to that, and to your post above, the following quote seem appropriate:
"Now tell us how you REALLY feel?" :)
Cheers,
GND is Graduated Neutral Density Filters used in the field.
HDR means High Dynamic Range and refers to the range of exposure values in a scene from light to dark.
Well said!!! Perhaps this statement represent the truth about photography...Colors and light conditions in nature cannot ALWAYS be accurately be captured by a film or digital camera that is limited 8-9 stop dynamic range and color gamut that is smaller then human vision.
So, if you manipulate the image in Photoshop, with multiple exposure, with GND filter, with Photomatix or with just dodging and burning the film you are doing the same thing...compressing the dynamic range of the scene before you.
Like it or not...Even one photographed processed using multiple exposure and then blended together is an HDR because it still involves compressing the dynamic range. It is pointless to argue the use of terminology.
-Jay
I use Photoshop the way I used to use a darkroom... to create a final image that matches my vision. The difference? With Photoshop, I can save my work and walk away... which means my children have a mother... not a closed door.
If you answer this question with a lower number does it make you feel that you are a "Better Photographer"?
"Do you label your photograph NO HDR"
If you answer the question is yes does it make you feel your skill levels are far over and above the mediocre photographers?
-Jay
Now - we're seeing the opposite. The photographer who has the added knowledge that comes with being able to processes his own work is somehow "less than."
To me, it's just another argument that keeps me away from what I really love - Photography.
Gary - I wonder if you might try an experiment. Choose a single image, and upload it to flickr twice (with two different titles). Include the same description with both images - but add the words NO HRD to one. Then, submit one image to ten groups, and the other to ten different groups (no overlapping). Compare the comments. I very rarely get a comment about HDR with any of my images, and I'd be interested to see if those few words are part of your troubles.
I don't worry to much about what people say about my processes... but I listen carefully to what they say about my final product. I want to know what they see, so that I can be more aware in my own work. Will I change something just because someone on the forums suggested it? Not necessarily. But I'll listen... because that's how you learn.
The exception (there are always exceptions) is when you are creating a personal interpretation which you do not intend as a representation of the subject. Even then your vision should be what impresses the viewer, not the technique. IMHO
http://www.paddling.net/showCartoon.html
In any case, the fact that this is the stereotypical look of HDR doesn't mean that it's not possible to use a program like Photomatix, usually as a piece of a much more complex workflow, to assist in the craft of obtaining photorealistic images. It can be done, believe me, but it invariably involves a lot more than dumping a few exposures into Photomatix and allowing them to "cook," then taking the resulting image as the final process. In fact, the workflow that I've found that produces satisfactory results is sufficiently involved that I only use it when I find that a single exposure or manual blending of multiple exposures won't work for some reason.
Personally I think it goes back to the question I asked in the earlier post. It is all about how it makes you look and feel.
A very famous and successful (and I would add very good) photographer claims this on his website:
"No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs. I use only natural light for all the images made for the gallery collection of handmade photographic prints."
Why would he make such a statement? Is it to perhaps to promote himself as being the leader in photographic skill? Or to sell his photographs as true "work of art" untouched by computer? Perhaps his work is threatened by the paradigm shift that is underway in the digital world.
Whatever the real reason his attitude towards digital photography sure is similar to some of the comments about HDR using Photomatix.
You underestimate the power of exponential growth curves. The singularity is near. Not only will the camera turn good light to bad light, the camera and you will be one, and you won't have to leave your petri dish to make the photograph. Ah, bliss.
Pete D.
great now I feel like having pizza and beer with Gary.....
It's a lot like what comes over me when I see the "home movie" technique of filming such as what they use on "The Office", only my reaction to that is much more negative because I just find it terribly distracting & contrived. One difference is that I have no need to try that kind of filming myself... there's nothing to aspire to there. To be very fair to HDR, I think I would need to visit the Norwegian Fjords or some similar fantastic landscape & try the technique & compare the results to results using some pp similar to what I know how to do, & see what outcome most closely captures the scenes I saw. If photography for me is overall about re-living my memory of that moment in time & light or capturing it for others, that for me would probably be the test of whether I'm really "over" HDR already, or not!